If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Identification by confrontation

05-16-2013, 08:15 AM

Trevor Marriott is clearly wrong to argue, as he is doing on jtrforums.com, that an identification parade would invariably have been used, and that therefore the marginalia must be incorrect in mentioning an attempted identification by confrontation.

In fact confrontation and even dock identifications continued to be used at least as late as the 1950s in cases where a parade was not possible. For example, a parade could obviously not be used if the suspect refused to cooperate.

Comment

In fact confrontation and even dock identifications continued to be used at least as late as the 1950s in cases where a parade was not possible. For example, a parade could obviously not be used if the suspect refused to cooperate.

Confrontation identifications can still be used even now under certain very restricted circumstances.

The following is the present-day requirement for the conducting of a confrontation ID:

3.23 The identification officer may arrange for the suspect to be confronted by the witness if none of the options referred to in paragraphs 3.5 to 3.10 or 3.21 are practicable.
A “confrontation” is when the suspect is directly confronted by the witness. A confrontation does not require the suspect’s consent. Confrontations must be carried out in accordance with Annex D.

(3.5 to 3.10 refer to Video ID, ID Parades and Group ID). 3.21 relates to video ID of an unavailable suspect).

A confrontation ID is (and I suspect always was) permissible if the suspect refuses to co-operate with ID Parade procedures. It's not desirable, because the witness is confronted with one suspect and one suspect only, so the evidential value is greatly reduced, but that doesn't mean that it isn't, or wasn't permitted.

Obviously a witness cannot be primed before any ID Procedure, so no officer involved in the investigation of the offence is allowed to be present. That's certainly the case in the modern era and I would be surprised if it wasn't so in the 19th century. If that holds good then Swanson certainly, and Anderson probably, could not have been eye witnesses to any Seaside Home ID if the expectation was that it would be used in any trial process.

Comment

Obviously Sandell was not entirely accurate in what he wrote. Nevertheless, he did write that Swanson named the suspect. Sandell's article would certainly not be consistent with the theory suggested previously that the final sentence might have been added after 1981 (nor would Jim Swanson's correspondence with the News of the World discussed elsewhere).

Comment

In the absence of the all-important "Kosminski was the suspect", Sandell can only have been told that D.S.S. said "he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski," for there is nothing else in the pencilled marginalia to substantiate such a claim.

All I am trying to fathom is why, presented with possibly the revelation of the century, a newspaper reporter would omit the all-important handwritten evidence of an LVP policeman which positively identified a Jack the Ripper "suspect".

Comment

Sandell wrote:
"The former Detective Chief Inspector Swanson, writing in pencil on the blank page of the book named the man. He said he was a Polish Jewish immigrant called Kosminski."

Mr. Sandell read what Anderson wrote in his book, and what Swanson pencilled in. He then described this in a readable, condensed two sentence statement.

That's what newsmen do. They write with the reader in mind. To make things clear and easy to grasp. Yes he was entirely accurate in how he described it.

Unless, Simon you are aguing that instead, Sandell should have written this so that his readers are supposed to not know this was pencilled into Anderson's book, and therefore nothing in the book has any relevance.

Is that what you are arguing, Simon? Or are you saying that because he did not exactly quote the words Swanson used that there's something wrong with that? When in fact what he wrote is perfectly ok. Or feel free to answer any way you like, Simon. Because I don't get your argument.

I understand what Sandell wrote, I don't understand your problem with it.

Roy

Sink the Bismark

Comment

All I am trying to fathom is why, presented with possibly the revelation of the century, a newspaper reporter would omit the all-important handwritten evidence of an LVP policeman which positively identified a Jack the Ripper "suspect".

Given that he'd already said that the suspect was named in the annotations, and that his name was Kosminski, presumably he thought that quoting "Kosminski was the suspect" would be repetitious. It's not as though the parts he did quote were accurately transcribed.